Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

tone down the nastiness! really- Wow- how thin skinned do we have to be to dialog on this post!
it's pretty pathetic if we can't point out who Lynda Hopkins might be beholden to after the likes of the Wine industry, and real estate are propping her campaign up! Obviously, you have not sat at many Board of Supervisor meetings to get a real flavor of the bought and sold candidates. those ducks are clearly ducks! and they don't pretend they aren't Ducks! Lynda Hopkins IS a duck, let's stop pretending ok- quack-quack!

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

beshiva wrote:

tone down the nastiness! really- Wow- how thin skinned do we have to be to dialog on this post!...

this thread's been great for OT digressions.

you really don't see the difference between "point(ing) out who Lynda Hopkins might be beholden to" and questioning whether someone is ignorant or just obtuse? In fact, there's a difference between saying someone's "beholden" and saying someone's "bought and sold". I really could care less if you want to turn this into a "my guy rocks! - your guy sucks and so do you!" but I again will gently point out that it's not a form of discussion that might win converts; it's actually pretty alienating. I've posted plenty of times without worrying about alienating people who disagree with me, but not if I'm trying to win supporters to a political candidate.

And I suspect I see in Richard Nichol's posts some history defending unions under attack - but I didn't see any attack in Michael's post - no statement that the unions were at fault for anything. I read it as a comment that they were ineffective in that case.
but anyway, my post was just advice - if you think the nastiness is working for you, carry on!

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

How was that the fault on unions? I don't understand what you are saying.

My position is and always has been pro union. Nevertheless, unions definitely played a part in the demise of Detroit.

"What Detroit does is give unions the keys to the treasury until nothing is left. That day has come, and their own success is killing unions... Detroit is already a union wasteland." Forbes Magazine February 21, 2013

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

beshiva wrote:

...are you saying it is the fault of unions, or the fault of corporate greed, or??

"If the residents of Detroit want to blame any person or organization for its Chapter 9 filing, they only need to look as far as the unions that controlled labor there and the politicians who ran it the past four decades. Detroit earned its bankruptcy the easy way — through greed, the desire for political power and poor planning." USA Today July 19, 2013

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

I think we can all vote for our favorite of these five fine candidates, knowing than any of them getting a majority in the primary is unlikely. Will the top two be attack dog evans and big money hopkins? There is a chance the teacher, activist, or social worker will be in the running come november. For now, vote for who you think will be best, later we will choose from who is left : )

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

I have no idea what caused Detroit's demise, but to point to unions as the cause and basing your stance on a few quotes from Forbes and USA Today is just shoddy research. Here's a few quotes that I found:

"Without unions, Detroit would not have risen to the heights it did. The real culprit in the city’s decline has been federal policies that put corporate health ahead of community health, such as free-trade agreements that sacrifice U.S. jobs for foreign trade." Washington Post - July 26, 2013

"Those who blame pensions confuse cause and effect — like blaming a personal bankruptcy on a pesky car loan after one’s salary was cut in half." Same article - Washington Post - July 26, 2013

And I suppose if you want a view from outside our own county, how about an article from the Guardian:

"Despite what the heroic sit-down strikes and other actions of the United Auto Workers had earlier won for their members, the auto companies' decision-making powers remained in the hands of major shareholders and their boards of directors. They used that power to evade, weaken and eventually undo what union struggles had won. The unions proved incapable of stopping that process. Detroit's capitalists thus undermined the middle-class conditions workers had extracted from them – and thus destroyed the "capitalist success" city built on those conditions." - The Guardian - July 23, 2013

Considering this comment has nothing to do with the 5th District Supervisor race, I figure I will end by getting us back on topic and away from Detroit's bankruptcy. Everyone who supports Lynda Hopkins and calls themselves pro-union, environmentalist, or a progressive, needs to look no further than Noreen Evans.

Noreen has a PROVEN track record on all accounts. I have no idea why we are trying to justify electing someone with NO record and NO true experience working in public policy. In a situation like that you can only throw the dice, and hope you get lucky. Lots of people can go get a degree in something (like Lynda's degree in Land Use Policy), but you still have to prove you can apply that knowledge in the real world. I am sure Lynda has some good intentions, and is probably smart, but before we go and elect her to the highest elected office in the county, she needs to go get some real life experience somewhere else. I for one, feel much more comfortable going with the safe vote...I feel comfortable voting for someone who I can trust will have our environment's best interests in mind, someone who will not choose development and big business over the unions, someone who has proved time and time again that she is a TRUE progressive, that person is Noreen Evans!

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

The reason unions came up on this thread is because people, led by Tom Lynch, are trying to pin our economic problems on pensions and unions, and Noreen is a big supporter of workers. Don't expect that attack position to end because the Alliance, Farm Bureau, real estate and construction interests, really are afraid of the progressive positions taken by Noreen. They want to keep control of the supes.

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

Good Morning Richard,

I'm not trying to pin anything on Unions, the members are as much a victim of our own devices as anyone else. The problem is of course our political leaders (especially Noreen), gave enhanced benefits WITHOUT FUNDING THEM.

Around 2003 the City of Santa Rosa (Noreen) and the Board of Supervisors, approved 50% retroactive, unfunded pension increases, to the first wave of retiring baby boomers. The 1000's of union workers retiring before this got NOTHING, ZERO, NADA (including no more cost of living increases for County retirees). Two years ago this increase was rescinded for all new hires. IF there is a retirement system when the next generation retires, they will get 1/2 what the current workers get, much later. Let's keep in mind the retirees that get the most are the upper tier.

So Richard, my problem with unfunded retirement benefits Noreen approved, and her subsequent failed efforts to increase pensions even more, and protect unfunded retirement benefits by restricting municipal bankruptcies, is we have now seen a five-fold increase in retirement benefit costs and corresponding decreases in all the social programs and infrastructure needs Sonoma County was once able to fund for generations but can no longer.

So if I am to be tagged with this idiocy of being a hack for business and ag interests, because I tell the voters the present union leaders like Lisa Maldonado, failed miserably protecting older union retirees, younger new workers (with new tiers), that we have lost thousands of new union jobs to fund these retirements, and have virtually destroyed many of the programs once available for education, for the poor, for the least of thee among us, so be it. The truth hurts.

Noreen and Lisa have never acknowledged we have a problem with unfunded pension obligations (first step toward finding a solution is to acknowledge we have a problem), they have both failed to respond to the challenge of finding a sustainable solution, and Lisa simply resorts to demagoguery and name calling, which does not serve the interests of the SEIU union. Does she think the Fifth District voters are so stupid, as to believe others are in the pocket of special interests, but says SEIU and Union contributions of over $75,000, doesn't taint Noreen's possible future votes, with most assuredly more of the same failed policies she's been part of for 20 years of failed government? Oh well...C'est la vie...

love,
Tom

Richard Nichols wrote:

The reason unions came up on this thread is because people, led by Tom Lynch, are trying to pin our economic problems on pensions and unions, and Noreen is a big supporter of workers. ....

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

Thank you Richard for this post.
This disparity in pensions and benefits is the dark side of unions, of which I am generally strongly in favor of, along with too many people at the top making fat pensions we can't afford.
I think this tips the balance away from Noreen for me.

riverosprey wrote:

...I'm not trying to pin anything on Unions, the members are as much a victim of our own devices as anyone else. The problem is of course our political leaders (especially Noreen), gave enhanced benefits WITHOUT FUNDING THEM....

What's really a turn off about many evans supporters is the whole us vs them ideology for a local position where we need a person who can listen to all 5th district concerns. Evans supporters tout her forum answers here and the local papers yet when I listen to them she consistently comes across as the least informed, most ridged, and out of touch with the people and place she wants to represent.

Her answer on groundwater for example. All she talked about was the state law she signed which helped create the sr basin management plan which should help. Nothing about all the other groundwater basins in West county, the state water resources board actions targeting homeowners and giving Vineyards a pass, ect. All the other candidates were better informed more thoughtful and caring in their answers.

I have yet to hear any explaination besides burnout for why she quit the state senate. She still seems burnt out, content to run on her laurels and political connections. Her idea of listening to constituents is town hall meetings on specific subjects? Maybe Jonathan listened to her answers to the presupplied questions and realized she doesn't have much juice left for politics.

Questions for SEIU Director Lisa Maldonado:

Today, I received a mailer promoting Noreen Evans that was paid for by Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Candidate PAC. I researched how much money the SEIU contributed (by donation or independent expenditures) to Ms. Evans' previous campaigns from 01/01/2004 thru 12/31/2014. The answer is ZERO (0).

My question for SEIU Local 1021 director Lisa Maldonado is this; if Noreen Evans is the candidate that stands with the working class citizens as you have claimed many times, why didn't the SEIU support her previous campaigns?

After 10 years without giving a penny about Noreen Evans, for the SEIU to all of the sudden spend large amounts of money supporting Ms. Evans for supervisor appears suspiciously advantageous to the union should she be elected. What can Noreen do for the SEIU now that she could not do in the Senate?

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

Yes you do, and I don't care, grammatical errors that is. You have been challenged to prove you are not lisa"s doppelganger and chosen to blow it off. Not an effective response. I just want to know who I am reading. It helps me understand you. It is a curious distraction and I try to honor the intent of the thread. Would you like to write about the info 5th district candidates have provided about issues they might actually vote on?

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

OK erik, the Sonoma west letter has cred. Or maybe it's because we seem to agree on swmc. Noreen's answer to detachment? It's problematic. She is the most likely candidate to keep throwing our money at a failing and unnecessary hospital.

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

Appreciate folks concerns about campaign contributions. With SEIU's latest report showing $64,040 from SEIU PAC supporting Noreen, along with an additional $16,000 direct from labor organizations, Noreen has received $80,000. I have to agree with the Press Democrat's assessment, "Noreen Evans, who did more harm than good in helping local governments work through their financial challenges due to bloated pensions. Voters have little reason to expect anything different if she wins a seat as a supervisor."

I am a progressive Democrat not beholden to any special interests...my number one concern is restoring as much of the services, this county once provided for generations, but can no longer, due to five fold increases in unfunded retirement costs. I'm also deeply concerned about the lack of affordable housing available in the Fifth District, and would be a strong advocate of owner occupied homes being able to add a "junior second dwelling unit', similar to Marin County's, with zero impact fees, hook-up costs and affordability covenants.

Re: Questions for SEIU Director Lisa Maldonado:

Today, I received another 9" X 12" mailer supporting Noreen Evans paid for by Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Candidate PAC. And yet, my questions to Lisa Maldonado remain unanswered. For easy reference for Ms. Maldonado, my original post is herewith attached below. [If it makes it easier for Lisa to understand, I will happily ask my apprentice to translate it to Spanish because for reasons unknown, my English version was completely disregarded.]

Speaking of disregarded, that is exactly what the SEIU did with the facts about the special interest donations to Ms. Evans' previous campaigns. In the latest SEIU mailer it states; "WARNING Follow the Money. Big Business interests, real estate PACs, developers and Russian River gravel miners have given tens of thousands of dollars so far to... Lynda Hopkins,..." Those very same interests [absent the gravel miners] plus big wine and big casinos, are the money behind the campaigns that brought Noreen Evans to power and elected her to the Senate. So yes, "Follow the Money" and any intelligent person will see that it leads right back to Noreen Evans.

Lisa Maldonado and the Service Employees International Union Local 1021 know this to be true, facts that Ms. Evans has admitted to and have been clearly documented here on Wacco. And yet, the SEIU under poor directorship, elected to ignore those facts and instead turn them against Lynda Hopkins. Such tactics give the SEIU a bad name and if the members of this union were smart, they would throw their director out of office for wasting the members monies on mailers that are misleading and full of trickery.

Michael Anthony wrote:

Today, I received a mailer promoting Noreen Evans that was paid for by Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Candidate PAC. I researched how much money the SEIU contributed (by donation or independent expenditures) to Ms. Evans' previous campaigns from 01/01/2004 thru 12/31/2014. The answer is ZERO (0).

My question for SEIU Local 1021 director Lisa Maldonado is this; if Noreen Evans is the candidate that stands with the working class citizens as you have claimed many times, why didn't the SEIU support her previous campaigns?

After 10 years without giving a penny about Noreen Evans, for the SEIU to all of the sudden spend large amounts of money supporting Ms. Evans for supervisor appears suspiciously advantageous to the union should she be elected. What can Noreen do for the SEIU now that she could not do in the Senate?

SEIU Noreen Evans Mailer v. Lynda Hopkins Mailer:

Today, I received yet another 9" X 12" mailer supporting Noreen Evans paid for by Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Candidate PAC [that makes three (3) in one week]. I also received on this day a mailer supporting Lynda Hopkins.

In comparing the two mailers I make the following observations:

The SEIU Noreen Evans mailers are based largely in negative fear mongering using terms like "WARNING" and naming the source of that fear; Lynda Hopkins, a 32 year old mother with two children.

On the other hand, Lynda Hopkins' mailer prints no words to illicit fear but rather, excites positive ideas similar to the New Deal which "brought together democrats and republicans, labor unions and private businesses, farmers and conservationists..." and that she "will work with traditionally-divergent stakeholder groups and organizations... to turn today's challenges into tomorrow's opportunities." Lynda's mailers do not name nor attack her opponents.

Personally, I believe that fear mongering campaigns no longer serve the greater good of the United States and that we should do locally, everything that we can do to stop this detrimental and disrespectful pattern. Evidently, the SEIU feels differently and by their actions we see that they want to perpetuate this destructive cycle.

I like Noreen Evans, and Lynda Hopkins, and Marion Chase, and Tim Sargeant, and Tom Lynch. They are all caring members of our immediate community who desire to publicly serve our citizenry and as such, they deserve to be treated respectfully, regardless of our personal opinions and differences. I suggest that if we can acheive this, then by example, we will change our country for the better.

Re: SEIU Noreen Evans Mailer v. Lynda Hopkins Mailer:

I received a 20-page large-format piece from Lynda yesterday. It was probably the best political/election advertisement I have ever received in over 50 yers of voting. It laid out her platform clearly and extensively. While it was a lot of reading, I learned a lot about this area in doing so - it was definitely worth the effort. Thank you, Lynda!

Michael Anthony wrote:

Today, I received yet another 9" X 12" mailer supporting Noreen Evans paid for by Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Candidate PAC [that makes three (3) in one week]. I also received on this day a mailer supporting Lynda Hopkins.

In comparing the two mailers I make the following observations:

The SEIU Noreen Evans mailers are based largely in negative fear mongering using terms like "WARNING" and naming the source of that fear; Lynda Hopkins, a 32 year old mother with two children.

On the other hand, Lynda Hopkins' mailer prints no words to illicit fear but rather, excites positive ideas similar to the New Deal...

Re: SEIU Noreen Evans Mailer v. Lynda Hopkins Mailer:

Bill95446 wrote:

I received a 20-page large-format piece from Lynda yesterday. It was probably the best political/election advertisement I have ever received in over 50 yers of voting. It laid out her platform clearly and extensively. While it was a lot of reading, I learned a lot about this area in doing so - it was definitely worth the effort. Thank you, Lynda!

Yes, what a difference. Noreen's two mailers, (or did she have nothing to do with it, Lisa Maldonaldo?) were glossy slogan pieces with some specific jabs at Hopkins containing no real substance about district 5. It demonstrated that Noreen is a tired Santa Rosa and Sacramento retread establishment politician who just can't quite give up the power she once had.

Hopkins mailer was full of specific references and positions on the issues the 5th district faces, and not one negative word about her opponents. The choice between these two is quite clear.

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

I received a mailer from Tim Sergent this week. It's the only one I've received from him because he didn't take all that money from special interests (like Hopkins did from gravel mining Syar, Ratto Group/Waste Management, large wine businesses) to send a steady barrage of mailers and private newspapers. Please consider him to represent us. He is our best choice, and unlike Hopkins, he is running a real grassroots campaign. He works for a living, he as lived here for 20 years, even though he was not gifted a farm.

Hopkins' money comes from the 4th district (not the 5th!), and so much of it. $138,000.00 and counting. This woman has a lot of nerve (or ignorance) and money thinking she can buy the 5th district with 4th district money.

Please don't be fooled buy her shiny assault on your mailbox.

Here are a few of candidate Tim Sergent's resume highlights that voters may want to consider as they make informed decisions at the ballot box.

He is a US Army veteran.

He put himself through school, attended Santa Rosa Junior College, then transferred to and graduated from UC Berkeley.

He served as a Congressional Liaison in Washington DC. (He bounced back from that I believe)

He came home to Forestville after that; he's lived in the 5th district for almost 20 years.

He's been public school Teacher at Maria Carrillo High School for 10 years. (You lead a classroom full of freshmen, you have a fighting chance with that Sonoma County Board of Supes!)

He works full-time while running this truly grassroots campaign.

Plays guitar and speaks Spanish even.

His campaign is been funded solely by his own teacher's salary and the small donations from regular working people in the community.

In addition to a pretty sweet resume, he has a real sense of this community, who we are, what we value, and an ability to cooperate and lead. He has not taken money from the big dogs, so if he is elected he won't owe them (unlike the two whose names I just don't feel like saying anymore). He is not just 'for us,' he's one of us.

The 5th district is full of smart people who read up and make informed decisions. I thought I'd give you all a bit more food for thought.

... Evans supporters tout her forum answers here and the local papers yet when I listen to them she consistently comes across as the least informed, most ridged, and out of touch with the people and place she wants to represent. ...

Thank the goddess for spellchecker programs. Otherwise all would be subjected to my phonetic predicaaliction. Computers are no more perfect than their creators, they are a super bright, unrelenting mirror of us. Is Noreen ridged or rigid? In the pidgin polyglot of my native lingo, I entertain both, further info will come as she runs to represent, I am still listening. Yes I have already voted, but two of the five will still be in the run, I am almost sure....

Re: PD Editorial: Lynda Hopkins for 5th District supervisor

SONOMA SUN
The Community's Independent Voice
May 27th,2016Sonoma County supervisor contests will determine balance of power

Opinion by Ben Boyce

While the national media attention is consumed with the fascinating and unprecedented presidential election, we have a consequential election right here in Sonoma County for our most powerful political body, the Board of Supervisors. The two races that will determine the ideological direction of the Board are in the 1st and 5th Supervisory Districts. The balance of power between progressive Democrats and ‘moderate’ (business) Democrats is what’s at stake.

My wife and I attended the 1st District Supervisor candidate’s debate last week at the Sonoma Charter School in Boyes Hot Springs, sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Springs Community Alliance sponsored the debate. A lively audience of about 100 attended the event. The League moderator did an excellent job of moving the debate along and setting a civil tone. Three candidates were on the stage: incumbent Susan Gorin, challenger Gina Cuclis and perennial message candidate Keith Rhinehart. For the large number of young people present, the debate was a good model of civic participation.

Parsing local politics in Northern California is challenging for the casual outside observer, because the conventional Democrat/Republican party labels are not an accurate guide to a candidate’s positions. The Republican Party has collapsed into a vestigial entity in this region. They do run protest candidates just to get their message out, but the real action occurs within the Democratic Party. Just voting for ‘the Democrat’ is no guarantee that you are voting for a candidate who actually shares your values.

North Bay Democrats come in two main flavors: ‘progressives’ and ‘moderates.’ A number of so-called moderate Democrats who have run in recent years were registered Republicans in their home state before moving to California. The progressive wing of the Northern California Democratic Party is generally associated with powerful environmental and labor organizations, while the centrist Democrats are endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, large real estate and agriculture interests, and the major business-oriented regional newspapers.

Centrist or moderate Democrats are the new stealth brand of what used to be the regional Republicans. Since you can’t get elected to almost any office with an ‘R’ in front of your name, local conservative-leaning political consultants advise ambitious political actors to run as Democrats. They differ from orthodox conservative national Republicans in their de-emphasis on culture war issues and a greater concern for environmental conservation and quality of life issues. What they have in common is the core belief that the primary role of government is to facilitate a ‘healthy business climate’ and a dedication to deregulation, and diminishing the role of the public sector unions.

The most reliable indicator of a candidate’s political allegiances is to look at who is funding their campaigns. One caveat is that large business organizations like The Chamber will spread their bets if a progressive incumbent is a sure winner, thereby maintaining access. The axis of conservative power in Sonoma County is the Chamber, the Sonoma County Alliance, and the Farm Bureau. The axis of progressive power is groups like Sonoma County Conservation Action, the North Bay Labor Council, and conservationist groups like Greenbelt Alliance. The primary political tensions are rooted in land-use and development issues.

Sonoma County has a decades-long history of resistance to the inexorable development pressure emanating from the expansion of the Bay Area megalopolis. The environmentalists can take credit for maintaining the green belts between cities, preserving agricultural land and preventing Sonoma County from getting built out wall-to-wall like other Bay Area counties closer to the main urban center of the region. The public sector unions have largely resisted imposition of extreme austerity budgets and the privatization of public assets and services favored by the North Bay Business Journal types.

Unfortunately, opposition to almost any proposed development is a hard-wired reflex for many rank-and-file environmentalists and conservationists in Sonoma County.

I have long argued (at some personal cost) for a carefully designed regional urban planning consensus, based on a large body of academic research, that concentrates on coordinating energy, transportation, and land-use systems. Twenty-first century urban planning seeks to preserve urban growth boundaries and open space districts; encourages in-fill mixed-use commercial/residential development; living wage businesses; and affordable housing located near public transit hubs. The conservationists, due to their professional class status, are often functionally indifferent to pressing social and economic concerns, like housing for service sector workers and weighting project approvals based on the wage structures and labor practices of proposed business developments.

The political landscape outlined here is complex and there is a continuum of views within each of the two major political camps in county politics. That is why identifying the best candidates for local office requires a degree of discernment. What’s at stake in the 2016 county elections is the balance of power between progressives and centrists on the Board of Supervisors.

With this brief power analysis of the Sonoma County political structure in mind, I offer my unsolicited endorsements for the Board of Supervisors. My clear pick for 1st District Supervisor is incumbent Susan Gorin, who has demonstrated an even temperament and a steady hand as Board Chair. Without reservation, I endorse former State Assemblywoman and State Senator Noreen Evans for 5th District. Noreen is a dedicated public official with a sound moral compass who will bring her deep knowledge of state and county government to benefit the Board.

Re: SEIU Noreen Evans Mailer v. Lynda Hopkins Mailer:

Of course Lynda Hopkins must write a 20page glossy- she must ramble on and on as to what she might do, wants to do, and hopes to do. (good luck) what else can someone say who has not been an activist to change a damn thing in this county. where has she been? what does she hope to accomplish after she clearly has stepped into a whole lot of doo-doo in aligning herself with the Wine and Real Estate Industry. this isn't even my gripe, actually (lol)..

She absolutely has no idea what Law Enforcement does in this county, who is in charge and that 51% of the budget goes to Justice Services and that doesn't seem to alarm her whatsoever! she doesn't pay attention, already has made some preposterous statements regarding LE, as in, we need More deputies on school campuses- damn, Really Lynda?!! why don't we militarize the whole damn County.

Freitas is a loose cannon, and the Board knows it! Why else would they have to write two long extensive articles in the PD to "help" the residents of SoCo try to understand the misunderstood Sheriff? Millions of dollars are spent paying off lawsuits in this county because of Sheriff Freitas, and Lynda Hopkins hasn't a clue or even a question why this seems so bizarre and not quite right!
i give up :(

jbox wrote:

...Hopkins mailer was full of specific references and positions on the issues the 5th district faces, and not one negative word about her opponents. The choice between these two is quite clear.